You are on page 1of 11

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Technology 24 (2016) 1808 – 1818

International Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering, Science and Technology (ICETEST


- 2015)

Aesthetic judgement and visual impact of architectural


forms: a study of library buildings
K. Aysha Jennatha*, Nidhish P. J.b*
a
Under Graduate Scholar, Department of Architecture, Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Technology, Government Engineering College, Velloor (P.O.),
Pampady, Kottayam, Kerala, India-686501
b
Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Technology, Government Engineering College, Velloor (P.O.),
Pampady, Kottayam, Kerala, India-686501

Abstract

Aesthetic appeal of a building, in architecture, has a key concern and isgenerally adjudged a subjective feature. Yetsome
buildings are appreciated worldwide, while some others are criticised. Possibilities are there that certain built form characteristics
exist, which make buildings appeal to the mass. This study attempts to realise those intentionally or intuitively used parameters
for the aesthetic appraisal of a building’s external form. Various buildings were examined and form featuresanalyzed so as to find
out which makes them aesthetically appealing and howan external form affects the assessment of internal space quality. A survey
was conducted among an identified user group; herecollege students, to evaluate the aesthetic appeal of certain selected public
buildings; here library buildings, to rate how the building satisfies certain chosen qualities and the expected functionality. The
data obtained indicates that there exist certain built form features preferred by the present community and that building aesthetic
appeal and expected functionality shows a high positive correlation.
© 2016 The
© 2016 TheAuthors.
Authors.Published
Publishedbyby Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd.Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of ICETEST – 2015.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of ICETEST – 2015
Keywords:Architectural form; Building aesthetics; Library buildings; Visual judgement parameters.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 98 47 490674.


E-mail address: ashjen09@gmail.com

2212-0173 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of ICETEST – 2015
doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2016.05.226
K. Aysha Jennath and P.J. Nidhish / Procedia Technology 24 (2016) 1808 – 1818 1809

1. Introduction

The aesthetic and functional preferences of clientele are not directly known in public building design process as
opposed to private ventures where that is thoroughly considered. Thus the question of clientele aesthetic satisfaction,
preliminarily judged by their visual perceptions which always vary according to the then socio-economic factors,
exists in a public building.

Major objectives of the study is to identify certain prominent built form visual characteristics or parameters by
analysing existing reports and to formulate an index of these parameters by conducting a questionnaire survey about
the preferred visual characters of a selected public building type among an identified present generation user group
and also to examine the co-relation between building’s visual aesthetic appeal and expected functional quality. The
results of the study will help in designing buildings aesthetically appealing to the present generation and also in
making existing buildings appear more welcoming by improving the right factors.

1. Architectural form and aesthetics

Architectural form is the visual characteristic of a building that gives it a unique identity and differentiates it from
others. ‘Architectural form is the point of contact between mass and space’. [1]As the primary perceptible feature, it
is the principal aspect in the aesthetic enjoyment of a building. While designing or analysing an architectural form
the following factors play a crucial role:
x Building shape refers to the configuration of surfaces and edges of three dimensional objects.
x Texture and colour which are perceptible impressions and finishes linked to material usage which can alter
the sensitivity of any given form.
x Composition of architectural elements which hooks the exact permutations of building mass, proportion of
one part to the other parts and to the whole of the building and rhythm which is the repetition of
architectural elements, structural parts etc., which may be regular or complex.
x Light conditions in which the building is viewed.

Aesthetics is the theory of liberal arts, lower theory of cognition, art of beautiful thinking, art of sensory cognition.
[2]
Knowledge about which all visual properties bear the potential to be aesthetically experienced or affect aesthetic
preferences are documented in many researches and as an outcome, unlike earlier periods, the present century deals
with customized creations of buildings, mainly linked with single design experts. This experimental culture
constantly created and is still creating new styles within fairly short times leading to a dominance of style over
content in architecture and resulted in many trajectory shifts in building aesthetic perceptions. [3]The visual
properties, bearing the potential to be aesthetically experienced are compiled as:
x Visual Complexity related to the variation of dimensions, among elements which are both part of building
and context.
x Colour is the primary identifiable visual stimulus and clearly affects aesthetic preferences.
x Symmetry of the form is detected early, in complex abstract patterns and generally tends to be preferred
over non-symmetry.[4]
x Familiarity through exposure and repetition increases the affective fondness of the specimen building.
x Knowledge and Expertise: Expertise on the style, its historical importance or knowledge about the architect
also comes to exert some degree of influence in the aesthetic appraisal of a building.

2. Case Study

“Visual Aesthetic Perception and Judgement of Urban Streetscapes”. M Gjerde [5]


This study was focused on the environmental aesthetic and visual judgement of townscapes in New Zealand. A
questionnaire survey study was conducted among ordinary local town populace which included photographs
showing accurate elevation of six different urban streetscapes, representing different range of contemporary building
types. A survey questionnaire was developed around some attributes, selected from previous studies and the photos
were asked to be judged and rate out of five for visual interest, sense of order, expression of human scale, evidence
1810 K. Aysha Jennath and P.J. Nidhish / Procedia Technology 24 (2016) 1808 – 1818

of human activity and maintenance and select one streetscape they felt was the most aesthetically pleasing.
The study reinforced many earlier research findings like:
x Too much built complexity is poorly received by respondents.
x New buildings should be visually accessible to enable use and activity to be understood and engaged with.
x Facades with clean and modern finishes have a major impact in the judgement of urban streetscapes.

3. Research Methodology

The methodology selected for research is to initially list out certain prominent parameters relating to building form
and aesthetics in view of the literature and case studies and to conduct an online questionnaire survey with questions
framed on the basis of the listed parameters.

3.1. List of visual aesthetic judgement parameters selected for survey

Based on earlier literature and reference studies, a set of visual aesthetic judgement parameters of maximum
significance on building form were selected for questionnaire survey.
x Shape or Geometry which defines the form silhouette.
x Composition of architectural elements which defines the form complexity.
x Material Usage which defines the form texture, age and structural character.
x Colour which defines the intensity of façade finishes, level of cleanliness and the theme of building setting.
x Functional character which defines the expected functional quality of the interior space (depends on the
category of building or building type to be selected for the survey)

3.2. Building type selection

Three major factors were considered while selecting the building type for the study, which were:
x It must come under public category building, allowing access to a public group.
x It must come under such a building type which is functionally significant to present generation.
x Availability of wide variety of samples of the building type, in terms of variation in architectural style,
location and time period of commission.
Considering these factors ‘library buildings’ were selected for the study as they satisfied all the factors.

3.3. Questionnaire survey

An online questionnaire survey was adopted to gather the required data as it could reach wider targets and can be
easily accessed.

Demography of survey: The survey was decided to be conducted among college students of Rajiv Gandhi Institute
of Technology, affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam, Kerala. This was owing to the following facts:
x The chosen building type has an academic nature.
x Availability of wide variety of demographic groups in terms of age groups- from eighteen to twenty three
years old, representing the present generation, branches of study (representing variation in field of
expertise), location (student groups came from various regional, national and international locations).
x The ease of conducting survey as the respondents will have enough technological knowledge to participate
in an online survey.

Selection of building samples: While selecting the sample library buildings for survey, main focus was given to
diminish the effect of ‘building familiarity’ factor, which may bias the respondent’s aesthetic judgement either in a
positive or negative manner. The solution was to increase the variety in samples in terms of ‘location and building
data’. Four ‘sets of samples’ which vary location wise as international, national, state and regional levels, with each
K. Aysha Jennath and P.J. Nidhish / Procedia Technology 24 (2016) 1808 – 1818 1811

set consisting of four ‘sample buildings’ were identified. In each level itself the samples vary in all background data
like the style of construction, age of building, architectural details etc.

Theory: Any enquiry regarding aesthetics would only be effective if they could provide the respondents, the rich and
detailed information required to make a judgement. This can be successfully done using coloured photographs of
samples. Previous researches show that there exists useful correlation between preferences expressed around two
dimensional representation and preferences expressed in the field. [6]Pictures, models and slide displays were used as
research tools in studies conducted by Hershberger & Cass(1974) [7],Oostendorp (1978) [8] and Seaton & Collins
(1970).[9]

Survey questionnaire [Appendix A]: Legible colour photographs of sixteen library building samples were collected
and categorized into four sets – INT, NAT, STA and REG, which represent international, national, state, and
regional level ‘set of samples’ respectively, with each set consisting of four ‘sample building images’ numbered
from A to D. The first part of the questionnaire dealt with personal information and the reading habits of the
respondents. The next part was divided into four sections based on the location of the buildings- international,
national, state and regional. Each section had a set of ten questions based on the five visual aesthetic judgement
parameters listed earlier. The respondents were also asked to rate each building’s photograph on its ‘visual aesthetic
appeal’ and ‘expected reading comfort’ on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the lowest and 5 the highest.

Survey response: The survey returned 125 questionnaires. The response rate was average with fairly equal gender
representation finding 60% female respondents and effectively equal architecture and non-architecture student
representation.

4. Main results

4.1. Analysis I: Correlation between building’s visual aesthetic appeal and expected reading comfort (building’s
expected functional quality)

Methodology: The respondents were asked to rate each building image for its ‘visual aesthetic appeal’ and ‘expected
reading comfort’ in ‘Likert scale’ [10]of 1 to 5 (1 being the lowest and 5 the highest). Table 1 shows the arithmetic
mean values of respondents’ rating for visual aesthetic appeal and expected reading comfort for each sample.

Table 1.Respondents’ rating of visual aesthetic appeal and expected reading comfort of each library

Libraries Visual aesthetic Expected Reading


appeal (x) Comfort (y)
INT-A 4 4
INT-B 4 3
INT-C 3 3
INT-D 4 3
NAT-A 4 3
NAT-B 4 3
NAT-C 4 3
NAT-D 4 3
STA-A 3 3
STA-B 3 3
STA-C 4 4
STA-D 3 3
REG-A 4 4
REG-B 3 3
REG-C 2 2
REG-D 3 3

The correlation coefficient was calculated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient formula, equation (1) andobtained
as +0.92, which denotes a ‘very strong positive relationship’ between the variables.
1812 K. Aysha Jennath and P.J. Nidhish / Procedia Technology 24 (2016) 1808 – 1818

¦( x  x )( y  y )
r (1)
¦( x  x ) 2 ¦( y  y ) 2

Where ‘r’ is the correlation coefficient, ‘x’ is respondents’ rating of visual aesthetic appeal; ‘y’ is respondents’
rating of expected reading comfort and, ‘n’ is the sample size (in this case 16).

Fig. 1. Correlation between visual aesthetic appeal and expected reading comfort

From the analysis it can be concluded that a building’s visual aesthetic appeal and expectedfunctional quality is
correlated in a linear or very strong positive manner.

4.2. Analysis II: Index of form visual aesthetic judgement parameters

As in the outcome of analysis I, if there exists a strong positive relation betweenvisual aesthetic appeal and expected
functional quality, improvement of the building’s visual aesthetic appeal must be done from a viewer’s perception
level, in order to develop a collective interest towards the building and to ensure its overall success.

Theory: According to earlier studies, any perception must be hierarchically organised [11] and the ‘perception order’
of parameters has a profound influence as it is the key component of a pleasing aesthetic experience.[12]Therefore an
effort was made to formulate an order or index of aesthetic judgement parameters.

Methodology: Respondents were asked to choose a building out of four at each set of samples which they thought
was the best in shape, composition of architectural elements, material usage and colour. The data obtained was
compiled to form a scorecard in which the score of a building under each parameter was taken as ‘the percentage of
survey population choosing it as the best in terms of that parameter’. Thus each building’s scores in all the
parameters were obtained (Table 2 – 5) and were added to give total aesthetic score of the same. An individual
building level analysis and an overall analysis was done.

Table 2. Individual building level analysis - International library samples’ score

Parameters INT-A INT-B INT-C INT-D


Shape 52.1 26.4 14.9 6.6
Composition 55.4 14.9 19.8 9.9
Material usage 37.7 32.8 11.5 18
Colour 45.9 32.8 15.6 5.7
Total aesthetic score 191.1 106.9 61.8 40.2
K. Aysha Jennath and P.J. Nidhish / Procedia Technology 24 (2016) 1808 – 1818 1813

Table 3. Individual building level analysis - National library samples’ score

Parameters NAT-A NAT-B NAT-C NAT-D


Shape 20.5 15.4 34.2 29.9
Composition 24.6 18.4 26.3 30.7
Material usage 16.7 12.3 47.4 23.7
Colour 28.1 21.1 28.1 22.8
Total aesthetic score 89.9 67.2 136 107.1

Table 4. Individual building level analysis - State library samples’ score

Parameters STA-A STA-B STA-C STA-D


Shape 22.3 17.9 50.9 8.9
Composition 17.7 25.7 47.8 8.8
Material usage 22.7 19.1 49.1 9.1
Colour 25.9 25 39.3 9.8
Total aesthetic score 88.6 87.7 187.1 36.6

Table 5. Individual building level analysis - Regional library samples’ score

Parameters REG-A REG-B REG-C REG-D


Shape 64.7 10.3 4.3 20.7
Composition 57.9 10.5 4.4 27.2
Material usage 45.6 19.3 6.1 28.9
Colour 50 14.9 12.3 22.8
Total aesthetic Score 218.2 55 27.1 99.6

Individual analysis: INT-A and INT-C, NAT-D showed ‘Composition of architectural elements’ as their primary
judging parameter by a major share of respondents. Alinear repetition of elementswas thus shown having a positive
aesthetic response. Irregular geometries, like that of INT D,scored low in building shape. Shape was appreciated
when ‘well-proportioned’, with symmetric and rhythmic arrangement of windows favoured in composition in STA-
C. Bricks and earthen tones were shown to have a higher aesthetics response than modern materials as seen in case
of INT-A, NAT-C, STA-C. In International libraries like INT-B and INT-D, use of glass with pattern facades was
appreciated by a significant number of respondents.

Overall analysis: Percentage contribution of each parameter to the total aesthetic score of each building sample was
calculated and tabulated to obtain the ‘total average percentage contribution’ of each factor, as presented in Table 6.

Table 6.Percentage contribution of each parameter in the total aesthetic score of each library sample

Libraries Shape Composition Material Usage Colour


INT-A 27.26 28.99 19.73 24.02
INT-B 24.70 13.94 30.68 30.68
INT-C 24.11 32.04 18.61 25.24
INT-D 16.42 24.63 44.78 14.18
NAT-A 22.80 27.36 18.58 31.26
NAT-B 22.92 27.38 18.30 31.40
NAT-C 25.15 19.34 34.85 20.66
NAT-D 27.92 28.66 22.13 21.29
STA-A 25.17 19.98 25.62 29.23
STA-B 20.41 29.30 21.78 28.51
STA-C 27.20 25.55 26.24 21.00
STA-D 24.32 24.04 24.86 26.78
REG-A 29.65 26.54 20.90 22.91
REG-B 18.73 19.09 35.09 27.09
REG-C 15.87 16.24 22.51 45.39
REG-D 20.78 27.31 29.02 22.89
Average
23.34 24.40 25.85 26.41
contribution
1814 K. Aysha Jennath and P.J. Nidhish / Procedia Technology 24 (2016) 1808 – 1818

Index of aesthetic judgement parameters: A comparative analysis was done as presented in Fig. 2, from which it can
be concluded that‘Colour’ becomes the primary parameter used by respondents for the aesthetic judgement of a
building followed by ‘Material usage’, ‘Composition of architectural elements’ and ‘Shape or geometry’ and each
parameter contribution vary in influence by a factor of approximately 1%, which will have serious implications
when applied to any population.

Fig. 2. Average percentage contribution of parameters in the aesthetic judgement by respondents

4.3. Analysis of variations in the aesthetic judgement parameters between architecture and non-architecture
students

Even though much attention was given in the survey to erase the effect of ‘building familiarity’ factor, possibilities
of subjective responses are there owing to the presence of student architects in the survey population as they might
have some familiarity and preconceptions about the samples and their architects.

Methodology: A third level analysis was done where average percentage contribution of each parameter was
calculated separately for architecture students (Table 7) and for non-architecture students (Table 8).

Table 7. Contribution of each parameter in the total aesthetic score of each library sample by architecture student respondents

Libraries Shape Composition Material Usage Colour


INT-A 23 29 24 24
INT-B 27 17 28 28
INT-C 28 31 13 29
INT-D 25 14 50 11
NAT-A 13 33 13 41
NAT-B 23 33 10 33
NAT-C 26 20 34 20
NAT-D 31 26 21 23
STA-A 30 24 17 29
STA-B 18 28 25 28
STA-C 25 25 27 23
STA-D 24 24 21 31
REG-A 29 27 19 25
REG-B 22 20 36 22
REG-C 15 20 35 30
REG-D 16 26 31 28
Average
23.44 24.81 25.25 26.56
contribution
K. Aysha Jennath and P.J. Nidhish / Procedia Technology 24 (2016) 1808 – 1818 1815

Table 8. Contribution of each parameter in the total aesthetic score of each library sample by non-architecture student respondents

Libraries Shape Composition Material Usage Colour


INT-A 31 30 16 24
INT-B 23 11 32 33
INT-C 20 32 32 17
INT-D 11 33 39 17
NAT-A 27 24 21 28
NAT-B 22 25 22 31
NAT-C 25 18 36 21
NAT-D 25 31 24 20
STA-A 23 18 30 29
STA-B 22 30 20 28
STA-C 31 27 24 18
STA-D 23 23 30 25
REG-A 30 26 23 21
REG-B 13 16 32 39
REG-C 15 15 15 55
REG-D 23 28 28 21
Average
22.75 24.19 26.50 26.69
contribution

Finally a comparative analysis of parameter contribution percentages was done (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Average contribution of parameters in the aesthetic judgement by architecture and non-architecture student respondents

From this the following conclusions were drawn:


x In both cases ‘colour’ becomes the primary judgement parameter followed by ‘material usage’,
‘composition of architectural elements’ and ‘shape’, but the percentage contribution and gradation varies.
x Architecture students showed affinity towards shape and composition, especially to perfect geometric
samples with linear edges and ordered repetition of identical elements than non-architecture students.
x Both architecture and non-architecture students showed maximum interest in facade colours, but the
preference level varies as the former opted a neutral palette while the latter opted intense shades.
x Non architecture students showed more affinity towards variety in material usage, especially modern
materials, textures and patterns than architecture students, who had more interest in monotonous finishes.

5. Conclusion and future work

The theoretical method of recording preferences using two dimensional data through surveys and analysing them
using various statistical methods, when applied in the study of aesthetic judgement preferences of public
1816 K. Aysha Jennath and P.J. Nidhish / Procedia Technology 24 (2016) 1808 – 1818

buildings(here library buildings), brought out certain serious research conclusions, including the creation of a
parameter index, which can be listed as:
x Students have varied approaches towards building aesthetic judgement but they showed a consistent
judgement on the relation between aesthetic appeal and expected reading comfort (or the functionality),
which was found to be a linear or directly proportional one. This is specifically significant in case of any
public building, for any user group.
x While formulating the index of parameters, colour came as the primary stimulus in aesthetic judgement
followed by material features, composition of elements and shape or geometry.
x Even though there exists certain differences in the aesthetic preferences of architecture and non-architecture
students which are seen in their ranking of the aesthetic appeal of buildings, in the case of judgement
parameters both groups seemed to follow the same index which implies that even with attainment of
professional training in designing, the inherent aesthetic perception order of human mind hardly varies.

The research data, which includes the individual building level data, can be used for further studies. Only the
preference of judging parameters is discussed in this study and more research is to be done on each judging
parameter, using various statistical and analytical techniques like the Delphie technique [13] separately for different
populations, so as to identify their range of applicability in various contexts and the factors deciding their ranges.

Acknowledgements

We thank Mr. Goutham Chandra, Mr. Kiran Kumar, Mr. Richu Verghese and Mr. Brutus Martin for their help in
collecting photographs and Er. Zahir Ummer Zaid for helping to coordinate the survey. We thank Mr. K. A.
Mohammed Noushad, I.F.S. for help in procuring other photographs. We also thank all the survey respondents.

Appendix A. Survey questionnaire

Background information
Name: Gender:
Course & year: Age:
1. Do you have the habit of reading books?
a. Yes b. No
2. Do you read as a hobby?
a. Yes b. No
3. Where do you get the books from?
a. I buy the books b. I go to the nearby library c. I buy second hand d. Borrow
4. How often do you visit libraries?
a. Frequently b. Once in a while c. Rarely d. Not at all
5. How many libraries do you have membership in?
a. One b. Two c. More than two d. None
6. Which libraries do you visit?
a. Public libraries b. Institution libraries
7. Have you ever felt architectural features a library affect your reading?
a. Yes b. No

Following are a set of images of library buildings from all around the world. They have been categorised into 4 sets
based on their location-International, National, State and Regional. Along with the images are a set of objective
questions (answerfor all levels). Also next to the pictures is a box containing a set of qualities. Rate how the
buildings satisfy the given qualities on a scale of 1 to 5- 1 being the lowest and 5 the highest.

1. Which of these library buildings is the most aesthetically appealing to you based on its shape or geometry?
a. A b. B c. C d. D
K. Aysha Jennath and P.J. Nidhish / Procedia Technology 24 (2016) 1808 – 1818 1817

Fig. 4.List of library building samples at various levels

2. Why is the shape of the building appealing to you?


a. It is highly complex and unusual b. It is well proportioned c. It is ordinary and not confusing d. Suits my
idea of a library building e. Other
3. Which of the buildings is appealing to you based on the general composition of the architectural elements (i.e.,
the arrangement of windows, doors etc)
a. A b. B c. C d. D
4. Why is the general composition attractive to you?
a. It is simple b. It is complex c. It follows an interesting repetition d. Size of the elements e. Other
5. Which of these library buildings is the most appealing to you based on the material usage?
a. A b. B c. C d. D
1818 K. Aysha Jennath and P.J. Nidhish / Procedia Technology 24 (2016) 1808 – 1818

6. The material usage is appealing to you because


a. Traditional materials b. Modern materials c. Pattern formed by materials d. Suits the shape e. Other
7. Which of these buildings is most appealing based on its usage of colour?
a. A b. B c. C d. D
8. In which of these buildings do you think you will feel most comfortable to read for extended periods of time?
a. A b. B c. C d. D

9. The library appears most comfortable because


a. Its shape b. Its surroundings c. It is well maintained d. There will be good light inside e. Other
10. Which of these libraries do you think will have the latest searching technologies?
a. A b. B c. C d. D

References

[1] Edmund N Bacon (1974). Design of Cities.Penguin Books, pp. 16


[2] Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten (1750). Aesthetica. Hildesheim, New York.
[3] Helmut Leder, Benno Belke, Andries Oeberst and Dorothee Augustin. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgements.
British Journal of Psychology. [Online]. pp. 489–508.
[4] C. Frith and D. Nias. (1974). What determines aesthetic preferences? Journal of General Psychology. 91, pp. 163–173.
[5] M Gjerde. (2010).Visual Aesthetic Perception and Judgement of Urban Landscapes. Barrett, P. (Ed.) Building a Better World: CIB World
Congress 2010. Salford, UK.
[6] J. L. Nasar. (1998, January). The evaluative image of the city. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks CA.
[7] A. Oostendorp & D.E. Berlyne (1978), Dimensions in the Perception of Architecture-II, Measures of Exploratory Behaviour, Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, Vol. 19.
[8]R.W. Seaton & J.B. Collins (1970), Validity and Reliability of Ratings of Stimulated Buildings, Editor: W.S. Mitchell, Environmental
Design: Research and Practice, Los Angeles, CA: Environmental Design Research Association.
[9]R.G. Hershberger & R.C. Cass (1974), Predicting User Responses to Buildingsǁ, Editor: G. Davis, Man Environment Interaction: Evaluations
and Applications, the State of Art in Environmental Design Research - Field Applications, Milwaukee: Environmental Design Research
Association
[10] Gerald Albaum. (1997, April). The Likert scale revisited: an alternate version. Journal of the Market Research Society. [Online].39(2),pp.
331–48. Available: https://numerons.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/36-the-likert-scale-revisited.pdf
[11] Linda B Smith and Esther Thelen. (2003, August). Development as a dynamic system. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences. [Online].7(8),pp.
343–348.
[12] Pavel B. Ivanov. (1995). A Hierarchical Theory of Aesthetic Perception: Scales in the Visual Arts. Leonardo Music Journal Vol. 5, pp. 49-
55
[13]Chia-Chien Hsu and Brian A. Sandford. (2007, August).The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus.Practical Assessment,Research
& Evaluation. [Online].12(10),pp. 1–8. Available: http://pareonline.net/pdf/v12n10.pdf

You might also like